Navigating Peril: Syria’s Controversial Alliance with Israel

In the ever-complex landscape of West Asia geopolitics, Syria’s emerging leadership under Ahmed al-Sharaa, widely recognized as Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, is navigating a precarious path towards a potential security agreement with Israel. This agreement, touted as a step towards regional stability, raises numerous questions about the implications for Syria’s sovereignty and the broader geopolitical dynamics at play.

On the surface, the proposed deal promises several benefits, including:

• Fewer Israeli airstrikes on Damascus
• Protections for the Druze minority
• A possible revival of the 1974 disengagement agreement

However, beneath these surface-level assurances lies a more troubling narrative of opportunism, with Israel’s ambitions seemingly centered on dominance rather than peace. The United States, acting as a facilitator, appears to prioritize Tel Aviv’s interests while Syria’s sovereignty hangs in the balance.

Recent Israeli actions have already undermined the spirit of potential negotiations. On August 25, Israeli troops targeted unarmed civilians near Beit Jinn, while drone strikes hit Quneitra. Additionally, bulldozers have begun preparations for what seems to be a permanent military base in strategically significant areas. Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani condemned these aggressive maneuvers at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), labeling them as “expansionist and partition plans.”

It is essential to consider the historical context of the Golan Heights, which Israel annexed in 1981, a move widely regarded as contrary to international law. The contested Jabal al-Sheikh (Mount Hermon) stands as a symbolic reminder of Israel’s ongoing occupation and the broader implications for Syrian sovereignty. This situation does not signify de-escalation; instead, it reflects Israel’s consolidation of power.

From the bombings in Damascus last July to violent clashes in Suwayda, Israel’s strategy appears clear: transform Syria into a fractured state, vulnerable to external influences, while pursuing the long-term vision of a “Greater Israel.” Recent reports from Hebrew-language media suggest that the proposed deal may entail:

1. Ceasefires across various fronts
2. Removal of perceived Iranian influence
3. Bans on Syria rearming or hosting resistance groups
4. Creation of Druze “humanitarian corridors” for Israeli access
5. Disarmament in southern Syria
6. U.S.-Persian Gulf reconstruction funds, contingent on Israeli dominance

Al-Sharaa has acknowledged that discussions are “advanced” and a deal appears “likely,” asserting the need for withdrawals before 2024. However, he dismisses the notion of partition as mere “pressure.” Contrastingly, Israel’s War Minister, Israel Katz, has made it clear that Israeli forces intend to remain in a “security zone” within southern Syria indefinitely, casting doubt on any expectations of retreat.

The Syrian leadership has expressed a willingness to pursue “full peace” with Israel, provided it aligns with Syrian and regional interests. This position has been amplified by media outlets in the Persian Gulf, which seek to enhance al-Sharaa’s image. Interestingly, even Donald Trump has made comments praising him as a “tough guy” with a “very strong past.”

Nevertheless, the fundamental nature of this initiative cannot be overlooked. It mirrors the Oslo Accords, the Wadi Araba Treaty, and the Abraham Accords, all of which trade sovereignty for security guarantees. Despite the different names, the outcome remains the same: Israel’s supremacy is prioritized.

Al-Sharaa claims “we have the Golan under control,” yet his willingness to engage in negotiations amidst ongoing Israeli aggression tells a different story. As the saying goes, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.” No diplomatic efforts can obscure the reality of a deal that undermines Arab unity, neglects the Palestinian cause, and continues to leave Gaza besieged.

The involvement of the Druze community in these negotiations raises additional concerns. Their potential use as leverage to justify Israeli actions may lead to a dangerous autonomy under Israeli influence. Syrian representatives have communicated these fears to U.S. mediators, who have dismissed them as unintended consequences. However, the reality suggests a calculated division that threatens Syria’s cohesion.

The U.S. role in these developments is equally telling. Tom Barrack, following meetings with Israeli leaders, visited Damascus alongside Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Congressman Joe Wilson. His statement on X about a “united, stable, prosperous Syria” requiring broad representation may sound appealing, but it raises the question: who defines this “all”? In practice, it suggests a representation that aligns with Israeli interests.

For Israel, the ultimate goal is straightforward: security guaranteed by neutralizing resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, and beyond. For the U.S., this means continuing its long-standing policy of prioritizing Israel, imposing terms on a beleaguered region. However, the consequences for Syria are dire—exchanging defiance for subservience, and dignity for dependence.

Once viewed as a stronghold of resistance, Syria now faces the risk of becoming an enforcer of an occupier’s demands. This is not a pathway to peace; it is a descent into vassalage. As the situation evolves, one truth remains clear: “a leopard doesn’t change its spots.” Israel’s aggression will not diminish with a mere signature. Syria deserves to reclaim its rightful place as a sovereign nation, not as a security contractor. Anything less signifies a surrender cloaked in false promises, a choice that future generations will inevitably regret.